Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

Debating with Admiral Buzzkill is like having a debate with a Teabagger in an irrational reality bubble. It's a waste of time.

Well, that was wholly unnecessary. Infraction for flaming. Comments to PM.

__________________'First Contact' is the tale of a man who just wants to cash in on his creation so he can get wasted on an island full of naked women, but his fans keep insisting that he's a saintly visionary who has profoundly altered the world. AKA - 'I Don't Want to be a Statue: The Gene Roddenberry Story.'

People have curiosity, or they did. I read that showing people do computer searches (Googling) is a novelty that has worn out its welcome, so why bother showing it? Maybe for you and that other fellow (AB) asking questions and following threads and doing hypothetical thought exercises is a waste of time

You misunderstand. I simply meant that including references to things outside the story is a common occurance, and perfectly fine. It gives the impression that the world is bigger than what you just see in the movie or series or novel, and that's a good way to immerse the viewer or reader.

i keep thinking about when the Enterprise-A, B, C, D and E will be introduced﻿ in JJ's timeline if JJ's Enterprise stays around through 2293 (about the same time that the prime E-A was decomissioned) would the prime Universe's Enterprise-B be the alt reality Enterprise-A? and would that make Picard's Enterprise the Enterprise C?

What if Spock Prime says, "I've made a vow I wouldn't reveal information about the future and allow your timeline to unfold as it should. That said... the letters after the registry number was a dumb idea..."?

__________________Now that I've seen it, and have also had time to mellow, to really think about it, I now find it absolutely, unbearably repulsive in every way except for some of the acting. - about The Wrath of Khan. Interstat, Issue 62: 1982

i keep thinking about when the Enterprise-A, B, C, D and E will be introduced﻿ in JJ's timeline if JJ's Enterprise stays around through 2293 (about the same time that the prime E-A was decomissioned) would the prime Universe's Enterprise-B be the alt reality Enterprise-A? and would that make Picard's Enterprise the Enterprise C?

If starship registries are roughly chronological, and that is a big if, then it is possible that there could be 200 hundred year old ships in operation. I am thinking of the Heart of Gold, which had a registry of NCC-42. I think a ship that old would have gone through so many refits that it might not even be the same ship in the 2160s.

i keep thinking about when the Enterprise-A, B, C, D and E will be introduced﻿ in JJ's timeline if JJ's Enterprise stays around through 2293 (about the same time that the prime E-A was decomissioned) would the prime Universe's Enterprise-B be the alt reality Enterprise-A? and would that make Picard's Enterprise the Enterprise C?

I doubt this universe will get that far. Maybe Enterprise-A at the end of the third film or something.

If starship registries are roughly chronological, and that is a big if, then it is possible that there could be 200 hundred year old ships in operation. I am thinking of the Heart of Gold, which had a registry of NCC-42. I think a ship that old would have gone through so many refits that it might not even be the same ship in the 2160s.

If starship registries are roughly chronological, and that is a big if, then it is possible that there could be 200 hundred year old ships in operation. I am thinking of the Heart of Gold, which had a registry of NCC-42. I think a ship that old would have gone through so many refits that it might not even be the same ship in the 2160s.

If starship registries are roughly chronological, and that is a big if, then it is possible that there could be 200 hundred year old ships in operation. I am thinking of the Heart of Gold, which had a registry of NCC-42. I think a ship that old would have gone through so many refits that it might not even be the same ship in the 2160s.

It's from Conspiracy, and it's another one of the in-jokes seen only on LCARS (in this case to The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy).

Registration chronology hypothesizing notwithstanding, there doesn't seem to be any way the Heart of Gold could possibly have had another registry number than forty-two, and the side-effects of the Infinite Improbability drive would very likely have rendered the need for refits pretty much irrelevant.

__________________"It is my belief that nearly any invented quotation, played with
confidence, stands a good chance to deceive." — Mark Twain

I had my qualms with Abram's 2009 Trek, but overall I enjoyed the experience of watching it. STID however, was dull, cliche, and incredibly stupid.

At some point, the movie stops telling a story, and just becomes a mess of various melodrama laden scenes filled with Star Trek references, idiotic plot holes, rehashed sequences and characters that have to constantly explain themselves in order to advance the narrative.

It felt very rushed and slapped together.

Paramount has been trying to force Trek into an action series for the past 23 years. Its sorta worked twice; this wasn't one of them.

Open question.

Why is it that some people seem to see all the flaws the way you do, and other people just lather on this unconditional praise "Loved it!!! Saw it for the 10th time and loved it even more!!!"?

I understand that taste differs, but the polar opposites that I see here are really baffling. I don't expect people to universally hate the movie, but to at least acknowledge that it has flaws. Your specific issues are not at all unique to your experience. They are what a lot of people, professional critics and average moviegoers alike, have been saying.

Because sometimes people want to have fun at the movies and Into Darkness is a fun movie. And your not looking in the right threads because many people who like the film haven't been shy about its flaws.

I had my qualms with Abram's 2009 Trek, but overall I enjoyed the experience of watching it. STID however, was dull, cliche, and incredibly stupid.

At some point, the movie stops telling a story, and just becomes a mess of various melodrama laden scenes filled with Star Trek references, idiotic plot holes, rehashed sequences and characters that have to constantly explain themselves in order to advance the narrative.

It felt very rushed and slapped together.

Paramount has been trying to force Trek into an action series for the past 23 years. Its sorta worked twice; this wasn't one of them.

Open question.

Why is it that some people seem to see all the flaws the way you do, and other people just lather on this unconditional praise "Loved it!!! Saw it for the 10th time and loved it even more!!!"?

How much genuinely unconditional praise have you seen, really? What would you estimate to be the proportion of people giving unconditional praise to people who say—right up front—that they didn't think Star Trek Into Darkness was perfect, yet they still managed to have a good time? Just as a ballpark ratio.

mos6507 wrote:

I understand that taste differs, but the polar opposites that I see here are really baffling. I don't expect people to universally hate the movie, but to at least acknowledge that it has flaws. Your specific issues are not at all unique to your experience. They are what a lot of people, professional critics and average moviegoers alike, have been saying.

Plenty of people have acknowledged flaws, beginning with the earliest showings. I read this forum every day; what I'm seeing is a pretty continuous spectrum running from "loved it" to "hated it," and the poll results at the top of this page would seem to support that picture. That you see it as strict polar opposites... well, I can only say that I'm not quite sure how you arrive at that conclusion.

__________________"It is my belief that nearly any invented quotation, played with
confidence, stands a good chance to deceive." — Mark Twain

I had my qualms with Abram's 2009 Trek, but overall I enjoyed the experience of watching it. STID however, was dull, cliche, and incredibly stupid.

At some point, the movie stops telling a story, and just becomes a mess of various melodrama laden scenes filled with Star Trek references, idiotic plot holes, rehashed sequences and characters that have to constantly explain themselves in order to advance the narrative.

It felt very rushed and slapped together.

Paramount has been trying to force Trek into an action series for the past 23 years. Its sorta worked twice; this wasn't one of them.

Open question.

Why is it that some people seem to see all the flaws the way you do, and other people just lather on this unconditional praise "Loved it!!! Saw it for the 10th time and loved it even more!!!"?

I understand that taste differs, but the polar opposites that I see here are really baffling. I don't expect people to universally hate the movie, but to at least acknowledge that it has flaws. Your specific issues are not at all unique to your experience. They are what a lot of people, professional critics and average moviegoers alike, have been saying.

You have an implied criticism of people who love the movie and see it 10 times yet praise for the people who see it your way (naturally).

I think the movie has a lot of flaws and if they stop you from liking it then that's fine. However if other people can overlook the flaws and inconsistencies and blatant homeage then why aren't their opinions as valid as yours.

You imply that all professional movie critics and average moviegoers agree with you and the rest of us are just delusional. I have a different experience with average moviegoers (don't even know Star Trek) who think its a great movie.

But I'm a bit of a nitpicker and every movie has flaws. I see them especially in Star Trek movies because I know it so well. My non-Star Trek friends don't see them. There are more flaws in TSFS or INS or NEM or GEN or TWOK than there are in STID IMO. Do you want me to list them? I could and I probably haven't seen them in 4 years or more. I still like most of those movies.

And opinions differ some people don't like the Nimoy cameo. I love it. You're not going to convince me otherwise., It isn't a flaw though. A flaw might be Khan not being Spanish or Indian or a Sikh or Carol being English or Kirk having blue eyes